Overview

Hydraulic fracturing is at a crossroads.

Industry is more interested in this technology than ever before, as evidenced by the explosion of SPE hydraulic-fracturing papers over the last 30 years (from 38 in 1975 to more than 500 in 2005). But who is doing the R&D? Ideally, service companies, operators, consultants, universities, and government bodies would do this equally. The priorities of any one group would never dominate, and a healthy division would exist between technology pull (from industry) and technology push (from academia).

In an effort to better understand who is driving new hydraulic-fracturing technology, a group of hydraulic-fracturing papers in SPE’s eLibrary was studied by reviewing the affiliation of SPE primary authors for 1975 vs. 2005. (The search phrase “hydraulic fracturing” was used with an average of 40% of the papers reviewed in each year.) It was determined that technical leadership has changed with time, with a reduction in primary authorship by operators and universities/government bodies (from 40 to 25% and 37 to 25%, respectively) and a corresponding increase by service companies (from 20 to 39%). This trend also was observed in the broader oil industry (Lovendahl 2003) and in the scientific community on an international level (Rapoport 2006).

The reasons for this shift in technology leadership are clear. Many operator R&D programs have declined or have been deemed noncore and completely shut down. Many government bodies are receiving less federal support and are forced to rely on increasingly limited industry cooperative funding (Lovendahl 2003). The result is that most R&D is performed by service companies. This trend could result in hydraulic-fracturing innovation having a bias toward small-step improvement, rather than revolutionary technologies.

Keeping hydraulic-fracturing R&D active is a multifaceted challenge. Hydraulic fracturing is at the highest demand ever. R&D from the full range of industry groups and academia is essential for significant technical and commercial advancements to continue.

References

Lovendahl, K. (ed.). 2003. DOE Oil & Gas R&D Funding Trends. PTTC Network News. 9(1): 1. http://www.pttc.org/tech_sum/ts_v91_2.htm, 6 February 2007.

Rapoport, A.I. 2006. Where has the Money Gone? Declining Support of Academic R&D. National Science Foundation InfoBrief. September. NSF 06-328. http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf06328/, 6 February 2007.

Optimizing Completion Strategies for Fracture Initiation in Barnett Shale Horizontal Wells

Design of a Fracturing Fluid for a Deepwater Well

Imaging Hydraulic-Fracture-Induced Seismic Deformation

Characterization of a Shallow Horizontal Fracturing Treatment in Western Missouri

Simon Chipperfield, SPE, is a gas exploitation team leader with Santos Ltd. based in Adelaide, Australia. He previously worked for Shell Intl. E&P. Chipperfield has held roles in reservoir engineering and production technology (field and office based). He holds a Petroleum Engineering Degree (Honors) from the U. of New South Wales. Chipperfield has published more than 15 technical publications on hydraulic fracturing and sand control. He serves on the JPT Editorial Committee and has served as a reviewer for SPE Production and Operations. Chipperfield also serves on the organizing committee for the 2007 SPE Life of Field Surveillance Applied Technology Workshop, 31 July–2 August 2007, Sante Fe, New Mexico.

Overview

References

Related Reading